I'm sure they will do well, but seems like a lot of helicopter for the job. Interesting point about the range of the radar - 250 miles - that's going to make a big difference in some parts of the Caribbean

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. Winston Churchill

As I mentioned on the river opv thread the sooner we stop thinking of the bays and indeed the Albion’s as dedicated amphibious ships more as flexible multi role vessels who’s role is dictated by what it carries the better.

The utility highlighted is impressive we have the ideal ships but not the systems to utilise them. We need to spend money on a whole raft of new manned, optionally manned and unmanned small craft, helicopters and re-rolling of troops. Lots of capabilities now come in ISO containers not in dedicated ship numbers. Lots of smaller companies and boat yards can produce and innovate in this area. This is were money should getting spent not on type 31, or dedicated MHP vessels.

I think that we should not lose sight of the fact that we will still need warships, in our enthusiasm for the flexibility offered by other hullforms in the supporting roles. As it is, the T26 and at least the A140 proposal for the T31 both offer greater flexibility than previous generations of warships in the form of mission bays/ spaces, while still retaining a warfighting (sorry to use the word!) capability (any deficiencies in the A140, in that department, can be simply remedied by the liberal application of cash - the platform is fundamentally sound for a capable tier 2 escort).

I agree with the general thrust that we should be looking more towards offboard systems (I have been saying for a while now that we are unlikely to see a future generation of MHC vessels built to the same standards as the Hunts and the Sandowns - a militarised OSV is far more likely). I think though, with the current shortage of funds, that we are wise to take our time and co-operate with our allies in extensive testing, to ensure that, when we do commit to a purchase, we are doing it with a wealth of evidence to support our decision and are making the best use of funds available. I also feel that the experience gained will not only guide the direction of travel for offboard systems, but will also inform design decisions for the next generation of "utility" hulls.

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. Winston Churchill

And where in this grand scheme of things, are the ASW platforms needed to ensure the continuance of commercial shipping (we are a trading nation after all). The only possibility would be to expand the Tier 2 class to have the numbers (and capability) to perform this role. Not less than 10-12, I would say. The USN are giving us a clue at the moment regarding this shortcoming.You may say, ah but we will have the MPAs. We will, but even if their number was doubled they would not be able to cover all of the areas that may be required.ASW is one area where less is not more.

I would contend that, by building just eight, we are losing sight of that fact. The old yardstick of 10 C1 and 8 C2 frigates is closer to the mark, especially since we now have the carriers for the C1s (and destroyers) to looks after.

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. Winston Churchill

Scimitar54 wrote:... to expand the Tier 2 class to have the numbers (and capability) to perform this role. Not less than 10-12, I would say. ...You may say, ah but we will have the MPAs. We will, but even if their number was doubled they would not be able to cover all of the areas that may be required.

Uhm, not clear for me.

"I would say", if RN get additional 1.25B GBP money (or re-rolling the 1.25B GBP T31e program cost),1: buying 10 more P-8As2: buying 5 more T31ewhich will be better?

Using Bays for USV mother ship can provide A- MCM mother ship (can reduce MHC hull requirement --> can re-roll this money for other assets, such as CAPTAS-2 on T31e)B- or directly provide shallow water ASW capability (which requires numbers of assets, because it could not be covered with a single powerful ASW T26).

A and B, both possibilities are attractive, I think. If RN want to improve ASW capabilities in the "man-power and money limited" world, versatile Bays (or alike) can help a a lot by not limiting their task for logistic landing.

Yes, landing will suffer from "task overlap". But, it only means, RN will not be able to do good MCM warfare when using Bays for logistic landing. But, current MCMV fleet is anyway using a Bay as a mother ship, so the damage is small?

We are getting far off topic but a Boeing Orca XLUUV costs about £10mn each, so something similar for the RN for ASW protection operating from a mothership/OPV/Sloop would be a good option, though I’m very much in favour of 10 T26s and would see these (and MPAs) as complimentary.

"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Repulse wrote:We are getting far off topic but a Boeing Orca XLUUV costs about £10mn each, so something similar for the RN for ASW protection operating from a mothership/OPV/Sloop would be a good option, though I’m very much in favour of 10 T26s and would see these (and MPAs) as complimentary.

No objection, T26 and MPA are complementary. I'm also thinking so.

By the way (because this is Bay thread), Boeing Orca XLUUV will not be able to be operated from a Bay. Rather, it will deploy independently like SURTASS (which is good). What I am talking about is USV like Atlas-UK ARCIMS-ASW or Israeli SeaGull, or alike. And here is the important issue lies.

Effective/efficient USV/UUV are not yet know. RN needs more testings/verifications. And, because of this, larger and more flexible "mother ship" is important. Hence, Bay for MCM is very attractive. (If we see the Belgium/Dutch "MHC", it is very tight and lacks flexibility for possible future "inflation" of USVs. Which makes me fear.)

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Boeing Orca XLUUV will not be able to be operated from a Bay.

The Orca would fit in the Bay's dock - it's only 15m (51ft) long. They are most likely to be operated from shore bases, agreed, but at a pinch, a Bay-class should be able to transport/ launch multiple Orcas (and effectively operate as a submarine tender).

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Boeing Orca XLUUV will not be able to be operated from a Bay.

The Orca would fit in the Bay's dock - it's only 15m (51ft) long. They are most likely to be operated from shore bases, agreed, but at a pinch, a Bay-class should be able to transport/ launch multiple Orcas (and effectively operate as a submarine tender).

I would contend that, by building just eight, we are losing sight of that fact. The old yardstick of 10 C1 and 8 C2 frigates is closer to the mark, especially since we now have the carriers for the C1s (and destroyers) to looks after.

Or that the old yard stick is wrong or simply out of date with priority requirements being CASD and carrier strike. The roles required of what were “stabilisation” tasks and presence are of interest as there likely to be in a littoral area possibly that require distribution of sensors and function that I would content while difficult to define may not be best served in a traditional format, which is why there finding it difficult to articulate clearly exactly what a general purpose frigate is for or should look like other than it has to be cheap.

I find it interesting and a welcome move they’ve choice to deploy a number of fast patrol boats to the Baltic in the bays and Argus a replacement pool of vessels in this class especially if deployable from a dock would be interesting.

Scimitar

I would ask were this asw threat to commercial shipping is? There is not wolf packs in the Atlantic. Trade is extremely complex and robust with significant redundancy and ensuring its continuation is not a solely Uk task. When this comes up I often ask about definition of were this at risk trade comes from and does those sending it have as, much interest in seeing it arrive as we have receiving it. Very very few have the ability to disrupt trade on a global scale and there often the same people that are selling it to us, so would they sink it in a ship or simply not sell it to us in the first place.

It is totally irresponsible to plan a fleet or a Fighter force om the assumption that peaceful co-existence is going to continue, when nearly all of the elements for a challenge to our international rules based world trade are in place. If Governments do not take the threat seriously enough, then they are encouraging that challenge. With the time that it takes to build our ships and aircraft today, we will not have time to carry out the required expansion when (not if) the challenge comes.Does everybody else walk around with blinkers on? Or are they so wrapped up in virtual reality that they cannot see the wood for the trees. Perhaps they think that "Nanny State" can solve everything. Talk about the Blind leading the Blind.Wake-up everybody!

Calm down, you realize you are actually preaching the converted on here. The issue is that until Politician begin to realize that if a high intensity conflict erupts where we are directly involved we will have to fight with what we have be it stocks of 5.56 ammo to Frigates and Destroyers. Unfortunately thee are probably a large majority of personnel advising them with the aid of numerous Power Point presentations, that the level of risk is so low that we can have capability gaps and fewer complicated platforms than many believe we need to meet our defence needs and commitments. Government funding goes where the votes are. Even though we have fought the longest war for centuries in Afghanistan, there was no increase in the defence budget, just a stream of UOR band aids and the public were not swayed even when the bodies of fallen service men and women were returned to the UK in significant numbers. The majority of the Public believe that we will never get involved in a major conflict ever again and see the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union as the end of such a threat. They see China as the country that makes all the IT gadgets they enjoy, not as a an aggressive world power that repeatedly flouts international law and human rights. They fear terrorism but that they are protected by the Police and Intelligence Services, with only limited support form our Armed Forces. Finally the public probably wouldn't accept and mention by a Government that there was a real military threat after the damage done by the Blair Government over Iraq and Parliament and the Labour party would probably vote down any attempted motion put to the house on principal alone.

Well it seems that it is up to us to disabuse them all of the notion that "surrender & survive" is the way forward. Great tributes have recently been made to "a previous generation" in D Day 75; however, Our self-serving politicians are in truth, spitting on the graves of that generation by their inaction which is the most essential precursor to a future disaster. A public that can still believe (in most of) these creatures, when their performance over the last 3 years has been so visibly offensive, shows the extent to which that public has been sedated by the Nanny State. We must not do anything, to add to the delusion of well-being that is propagated.

2: Looking at Mounts Bay steaming along with Kingston-class MCDV (basically designed as MCM vessel), I wonder the future of MHC.

-Size; RN's 12 MCMV are basically the same size as the Kingston-class MCDV-MCM capability; Kingston-class can be seen as a "normal hull with open stern deck" = (a bit small) PSV. Bay can carry many remote-control MCM assets. Which will be the future of "MHC"? Note that, Belgium/Dutch option is much more on the line of Kingston-class MCDV, just "twice larger" with drone MCM kits.